[Cu-wireless] visited w/ hams this afternoon

[Chase Phillips]

Dave,

While one of the groups is vetted by the FCC (hams), the other is only
vetted in-so-far-as it is "not vetted" by being placed in the Spectrum of
Misfits with the other wireless transmission rejects.  It is obvious that
there will be some ham operators who will work hard to maintain the hams'
reputation in the eyes of the FCC, if only so they can keep on being hams.

Still others are working to make a legitimate reputation for the ISM band
(while there is such a thing) so that the FCC won't take what little space
we have away from us.  I would say that while in spirit hams are
not-for-profit, hobbyists, and are seeking to advance the state of the
art, they are in fact operating at the behest of the FCC, and that ham
operators know this, in general.  As Zach mentioned to me at a meeting,
they are self-policing, and they are generally strict within (and without)
their own circles.

Based on your views wrt. antennae, I guess that you are not too concerned
about the very thing that keeps the spectrum for hams "legal," correct?
(FCC)  How do you reconcile the large amount of equipment used in wlans
that must be FCC approved if it is to be mass-marketed?  In what ways
would it be better to consider FCC sentiments for this project?  In what
ways wouldn't it be better?  Is there any way to get what you want, and
still work with the FCC?  If after answering all of these questions you
come to the conclusion that there's a fundamental disagreement between the
interests of the FCC and cu-wireless, then you must then see the same
fundamental disparity between this group and the hams.

If such a disparity exists regarding legal concerns, and you still want
something from the hams, you've got to sell your case to those operators
based on the spirit of their activities, and assume that some, if not all,
will not only guffaw at your suggestion, but will also actively disagree
(and perhaps even attempt to work against you!).

I have my own opinions about the FCC which are totally not reflected by
this email.  I am merely suggesting one valid possibility: hams may not
generally want to be wireless outlaws, hence it may not be in their
interest to take on an atheistic mentality wrt. the FCC.

PS. I'm so totally _not_ trolling right now.

regards,
Chase Phillips
--
  shepard at ameth.org ][ -111--0010-0-1100-101-000-01--10
 http://www.ameth.org/ ][ 00-00-01-10--1-00-01-010111010-0

On Mon, 24 Jun 2002, David Young wrote:

>
> Part 15 is the section of FCC rules that applies to the unlicensed
> equipment we're using.
>
> I think that their interests are actually very similar to our interests.
> Both our groups are both for not-for-profit and hobby uses of the
> airwaves, and for advancing the state of the art in radio communication.
>
> Dave
>
> On Mon, Jun 24, 2002 at 06:09:38AM -0500, Ralph Johnson wrote:
> > What do you mean by "Part 15"?
> >
> > I'm not surprised by their attitude.  They are focusing more on their
> > own interests.
> >
> > -Ralph
>
> --
> David Young             OJC Technologies
> dyoung at onthejob.net     Engineering from the Right Brain
>                         Urbana, IL * (217) 278-3933
>
> _______________________________________________
> Cu-wireless mailing list
> Cu-wireless at lists.groogroo.com
> http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/cu-wireless
>